Category: Speeches & Lectures

William Shakespeare is out. Maya Angelou, Frantz Fanon, and W.E.B. DuBois are in. I’m talking about fashion at American universities.

There’s been some discussion in the mass media recently about the fact that American universities are phasing out Shakespeare and the other creators of our European culture and replacing them with non-Whites of various stripes, such as the three Black writers I just named. The impression is left by the media discussion that this is some sort of fad, which, hopefully, will pass soon. The discussion was sparked by a decision on the part of the faculty at Georgetown University, the prestigious Jesuit school in Washington, to drop the requirement that their English majors study the works of at least two authors from among Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare. Now Georgetown’s English majors can graduate without ever having read anything by Shakespeare. I’m not talking about Georgetown’s basketball players or her business majors. I’m talking about the students who are seeking degrees in English literature. An acquaintance with Shakespeare is no longer necessary. Nor is an acquaintance with the writings of any other dead White European males, or “dwems,” as they are referred to contemptuously by the Politically Correct elements at our universities these days.

And this is not a fad, nor is it restricted to Georgetown University. After Georgetown made its move, a survey was conducted among the top 70 universities in America by the National Alumni Forum, and it was found that two-thirds of them have made similar moves. Instead of studying Hamlet or Julius Caesar or Macbeth. . . or Milton’s Paradise Lost or Il Penseroso or the works of any other great writers of English literature . . . students of English literature are studying the scribblings of miscellaneous non-White non-entities, or they are taking courses in such pop-culture topics as “The Gangster Film,” which is now offered to English majors at Georgetown in lieu of Shakespeare, or “Melodrama and Soap Opera,” which Duke University offers to its English majors instead of Milton and Chaucer.

Other universities have courses on comic books or checkout-stand tabloids or rap ditties. The ones with real pretensions to seriousness have scraped together English literature courses which actually require the study of books written in the English language, so long as they were not written by a White male — at least, not by a White male who has been dead for a long time. Jewish males, of course, are A-OK, and so the students spend plenty of time with the works of J.D. Salinger, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Herman Wouk, Norman Mailer, Philip Roth, and scores of other Jews. Unfortunately, the students are taught that the books of these Jews constitute serious English literature. It was a little harder to convince students of that when they also studied Shakespeare and Milton and could compare their writing with that of the aforementioned Jews. Now it will be easier.

As I said, this is not just a passing fad, something very trendy and liberal to suit the Clinton era. It is the outcome of a campaign which goes back more than 30 years. In the 1960s, when I was a university professor myself, anyone who had suggested that Shakespeare should be phased out of university teaching would have been thought crazy — at least, he would have been thought crazy at the university where I was teaching, which was a bit more conservative than some. But even at my university there were faculty and administration people pushing for more democracy and more “diversity.” They were promoting the idea that universities were too White and too elitist, that we needed more “diversity” among students and professors and that we should give the students more of a say in the running of the university and not leave it all to the professors.

It was really very subtle. It wasn’t until they had established their idea about the need for more democracy and more “diversity” that they moved to the next phase and began suggesting that the traditional courses in history and literature were actually a bit . . . ah . . . racist and needed to be, well . . . cleaned up a bit.

And then a few years ago you had groups of the more trendy students marching around on some campuses and chanting, “Ho, ho, ho, Western culture has got to go.” They wanted the traditional courses in Western civilization to be replaced with courses which treated all cultures equally, instead of focusing primarily on European culture. And, of course, all along Shakespeare was gradually being eased out the door. It’s just now that a few people have noticed it and raised the alarm.

And even now the anti-alarmists are telling us that it’s all much ado about nothing: that English literature students still can study Shakespeare if they want to — and that some universities still require their English literature majors to study Shakespeare — so stop worrying. And, of course, that is true: students still can study Shakespeare if they want to — but there’s no denying the trend. There’s no denying that Shakespeare actually is being eased out the door, and that the curricula at our universities are being filled with courses which at best are worthless and at worst are destructive of the central purpose of a university, which is the training of an elite to carry on and enhance the cultural traditions of our people. Our universities actually have been subverted. They actually are being turned against us and used as weapons to destroy the civilization of which they used to be a part.

How did that happen, and why did it happen? There still are many bright people, as well as honest and well-meaning people, on the faculties of our universities. How could they let anyone subvert their institutions without noticing what was happening and opposing them?

First, I’ll give a very brief answer, and then I’ll go back and explain it in detail.

Our universities were subverted without any effective opposition because, first, the subversion was done very gradually, over a period of more than three decades, and it was done by a very clever group of very determined and very well organized people who already had infiltrated our university faculties and administrations. Second, the people who should have opposed the subversion already had been morally and ideologically disarmed, so that they could only fight tactically, but not strategically. They could oppose the details of the subversion, but they could not oppose the overall campaign of subversion — and in particular, they could not attack the subverters themselves. They were fighting the subversion, in other words, with both hands tied behind their backs.

Now I’ll explain this answer. Before this century, our universities more or less served their two basic purposes, one of which is to train scholars in a technical sense — the mathematicians, the chemists, and the physicists — and the other of which is to instill in a leadership elite of our young people an understanding of and a sense of commitment to our civilization, so that they can maintain that civilization and add to it. The civilization that our universities were a part of was unmistakably and unapologetically Western, which is to say, European — or if you prefer, White.

This fact did not suit some people. In particular, it did not suit the Jews, a people of Semitic origin with quite different traditions and a quite different way of looking at the world. To them our universities were an obstacle which stood in the way of their penetration and domination of our civilization. And so they set about eliminating this obstacle, in their usual very carefully planned way. They were very unobtrusive at first, just infiltrating themselves gradually into university faculties and more or less behaving themselves, trying hard to convince the people at the universities that they were harmless. They worked to get rid of the restrictions the better universities had to limit their numbers, and they very cautiously pushed such ideas as democracy and equality.

It was only after the Second World War that they really came out of the closet and began pushing hard for the changes they wanted in the universities. The Second World War, after all, had been fought for the sake of democracy and equality, we all were told. We had killed millions of people in Europe in the name of democracy and equality and had turned half of Europe over to Bolshevik butchers to kill millions more after the war. After that, how could we oppose democracy and equality in our universities? We needed to open the doors of our universities to everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, et cetera. We not only needed to open the doors, we needed to reach out and pull in hundreds of thousands of young people who before never would have thought of attending a university.

Of course, there was some opposition to all of this. Some university people expressed concern about the lowering of standards required to accommodate all of the new students, especially the Black students. And they were assured by the proponents of democracy and equality that standards would not be lowered: that the universities could absorb Black students and all sorts of other students without lowering their standards at all. To suggest that they couldn’t was tantamount to racism; it was tantamount to claiming that Black students could not graduate in significant numbers unless standards were lowered. And this was where the people who should have defended our universities against the subverters were stuck. They didn’t want to admit to racism, so they really couldn’t fight effectively to maintain standards that clearly worked to the disadvantage of Blacks. And they didn’t want to admit to anti-Semitism, so they couldn’t really take off the gloves against the ringleaders of the subversion. So they retreated, step by step.

Of course, pretty soon many more people than the original Jews were involved in the subversion. As the number of students at the universities increased enormously, many empires were built and many vested interests established. The salaries of many people at the universities have become dependent on how many students they have. Professors who teach courses in basket-weaving or golf or the-comic-book-as-literature become fiercely defensive and can give you all sorts of reasons why their courses are important. And there has been a growing tendency to cater to the desires of the students: not to teach them what the professors know they ought to be taught, but instead to teach them what they think they want to learn. For young people raised on television and permissiveness, what they often choose are fun courses, trendy courses, trivial courses, and what they often neglect are the serious and more demanding courses. Universities, instead of scholarly institutions, have become to a large extent economic enterprises: that is, commercial institutions selling education, and the customers all too often are assumed to be right. Sometimes when a university offers a huge assortment of Mickey Mouse courses, it’s hard to separate the economic motive of wanting to keep the customers coming in the door and lining up at the cash register, from the ideological motive of wanting to be democratic by having curricula that will be easy enough for everybody.

But despite the economic factors and other factors which have degraded American universities, the motive to destroy our culture and undermine our civilization continues to provide a powerful driving force for subversion. Political Correctness was born at our universities, and it reigns supreme there. University professors must toe the party line on race, on equality, on history, and on matters relating to sex and sexual orientation. And the party line is anti-White, anti-European, anti-Western. It is strongly influenced by the interests of feminists, homosexuals, and Jews.

One factor which obscures the seriousness of this problem is its uneven effects. It has devastated some academic disciplines and left others relatively undamaged. If one wants to become a mathematician, for example, there are many universities which still offer top-quality mathematics curricula. The Red Guards have not yet gotten around to applying the canons of Political Correctness to mathematics. It helps, of course, that most basketball players don’t care much for math.

But if a young person is interested in literature or history, he is likely to be badly shortchanged at most American universities. These are subjects on which the Red Guards have left their mark, and it is easy to understand why.

History is an inherently racist subject, although I can hear the gutless wonders who try to teach it squealing in protest at that verdict. History is racist because, in the first place, it involves the study of what various peoples and individuals have actually done, not what the theorists of democracy and equality would like us to believe they have done. History gives us a continuing proof of the fact that there is no equality in the world. It is a record of heroic accomplishment and outstanding virtue on the part of some, contrasted with chronic ineptitude and appalling iniquity on the part of others.

In the second place it provides the indispensable basis for a sense of peoplehood, a sense of rootedness, a sense of racial identity. It is not something you want spread around when you are trying to reduce a population to a mass of rootless, cosmopolitan, interchangeable human atoms.

Finally, history gives us some very inconvenient truths, especially about the origins and conduct of the two world wars in which we have participated in this century. Perhaps the undergraduates will sit meekly in their classrooms and soak up whatever lies the professor dishes out, but it’s still dangerous because some of the students may develop a real interest in the subject and do some reading or real research on their own, and there’s no telling what sort of Politically Incorrect things they may discover.

And literature . . . well, that’s at least as dangerous as history. Who can read the Iliad without his blood beginning to race and without feeling a connection to those ancient people and events? Who cannot be moved by the same spirit which moved Homer? And that spirit has nothing to do with the sickly spirit of democracy and equality. Dangerous stuff, indeed!

And then there’s Shakespeare! There was never a man who observed the human condition with truer eye than he. He stripped away every pretense and showed us as we are, the good and the bad — but hardly equal! The great danger in literature — in real literature, in great literature — for the democrats and the egalitarians is that it helps us to understand ourselves and to place ourselves in the context of our people. It helps us to complete ourselves and to become whole. It expands our horizons, helps us to see the big picture. It gives us ideals, models — and those ideals, in our literature, are not egalitarian ideals. Nor are the models Politically Correct: in fact, they are much more likely to be heroes than democrats.

And the people who run most of our universities these days are frightened by that prospect. In their view it is much better to feed our young people the sick, Semitic, anti-heroic blather of a Bellow or a Malamud or a Mailer than to let them get carried away with the dangerous, undemocratic ideas of Homer or Shakespeare.

And so our universities have become what they have become. And the people who should have stopped it from happening didn’t, because they were afraid to deal with the fundamental issues. They were afraid to deal radically with the problem.

And now, looking at the situation objectively, it is still possible to study hard and to learn at our universities — at least, in most curricula. That is undeniable. But it also is undeniable that the average graduate of our universities is seriously deficient in the arts of civilization. And that’s the way the subverters of our universities want it.

It’s a serious problem. We have a job to do at our universities someday which will make Hercules’ cleansing of the Augean stables seem like good, clean fun. Let’s hope that we can begin that job before Shakespeare has disappeared completely down the Memory Hole.

I was very pleased by the response to last week’s broadcast. I’ve always thought that most people are more interested in specific, anecdotal, and personal commentary than in more general and impersonal commentary, and that’s why I so often talk about very specific instances of Black crime, or liberal hypocrisy and nuttiness, or political corruption and treason, with names, dates, and places. But I am pleased to note that we do have many listeners who really care about the general principles underlying all of the specifics.

Today I’ll begin in a general way, but then we’ll move on to specific evidence to support the general theses. We’ll start with the general role of the Jews in European or White or Aryan or Gentile society, whichever term you prefer. My thesis has been that the Jews — as a whole — always are destructive: morally destructive, socially destructive, even intellectually destructive, but above all racially destructive. Any society, any nation, any people that gives the Jews a free hand to do what they want will be destroyed by them. This is so because it is in the nature of the Jews to destroy everything that is non-Jewish, and because the Jews have a unique faculty for destroying other peoples’ societies.

I’ll come back to this thesis in a moment with some evidence, but first we should note the problems it presents to us in our educational program. One problem is the inability of many of our people to generalize at all. They see everything only in individual and personal terms. You tell them that the Jews as a whole are destructive to our society, and they’ll say, “Oh, no, that isn’t true, because I know some Jews who aren’t doing anything destructive at all. They’re just minding their own business and trying to earn a living like everyone else.” They can’t quite grasp the concept of Jews as a whole; all they can see are Abe and Dave and Izzy and Sara as individuals.

A second problem is the other side of the coin: many of our people cannot think about the role of the Jews objectively because they have been convinced that the Jews as a whole aren’t like everyone else; they’re special and deserve special consideration; they’re not subject to criticism like other people. And I’m not referring primarily to the fundamentalist Christians, whose preachers have taught them that the Jews are “God’s chosen people” and can do no wrong. I’m thinking of the somewhat more sophisticated people, who have been taught by the mass media and the schools that the Jews are exempt from criticism because of their unique victim status. They suffered so much in the Holocaust that they deserve special consideration, and to accuse them of bad motives or wrongdoing is like kicking someone who is down.

Certainly, if we exclude the most primitive and superstitious Christians from consideration, it is the massive Holocaust propaganda that makes it difficult for most people to think objectively about the Jews. And let me tell you, it was planned that way. We’ll talk a lot more about that, but first let me finish my general thesis.

I said that the Jews as a whole are socially, morally, intellectually, and racially destructive, and that they have a unique faculty for being destructive. The reason for this is their unique mode of existence as a parasitic minority in a non-Jewish host population. Sometimes this dispersion — or diaspora — as a minority among Gentile hosts has been supplemented by a geographical concentration of Jews in Palestine or Babylon or another Jewish center, and sometimes not. In either case, parasitic is the applicable adjective.

There are other parasitic minorities, of course, but none are anything like the Jews. Gypsies, for example, exist as a parasitic minority in most White countries. Gypsies generally are considered a nuisance because of their proclivity for stealing, and when they become too much of an irritation they are chased away by the local people. But Gypsies never have an ambition to take over a White nation and suck it dry. They never try to subvert the host population. They never try to take over the schools or the newspapers and propagandize their hosts. They generally want to live among themselves, maintain their own identity, and exploit their hosts just enough to get by without causing a strong reaction.

The Jews, on the other hand, always try to take over. They don’t want the crumbs from Gentile society; they want everything. Gentile society, of course, resists, which is why the Jews have been expelled en masse from every nation in Europe, time after time, during the past thousand years. The Jewish method of overcoming the resistance is to corrupt the nation they are attempting to get their hands on. One aspect of the corruption is simple bribery. If you have enough money you may be able to buy privileges from the leaders of the nation. That worked when European nations were ruled by kings, and it works even better when a society is run by elected politicians. But if you really want to suck a nation dry, you need to go beyond bribery. You need to destroy a nation’s solidarity. A nation is, after all, like a large extended family, with everyone related by birth, even if very distantly.

You’re either in the family, a member of the nation, or you’re an alien, not in the family. That’s the essential distinction. So if you want to take over a nation, you need to make the members of the family, the citizens of the nation, forget their identity and their traditions. You need to corrupt the nation spiritually and morally as well as politically. You need to erase the distinction between insider and outsider; then you are no longer an outsider, and the resistance against you crumbles. Understand? That is and always has been the Jewish method: take over a nation by destroying it, by making a rootless, cosmopolitan, multicultural cesspool of it.

In other words, you need to gain control of the flow of information and ideas in the nation. You need to gain control of the mass media of news and entertainment. Then you can corrupt the nation’s soul. You can determine which opinions will be fashionable, and which will not. You can reshape the defining myths of the nation to suit your own ends. You can poison the minds of the children and turn them against their own people. You can steal the people’s knowledge of their own past from them and thereby be in a better position to steal their future too. You can plunder the nation at will. And that is exactly what the Jews have done to every Gentile society, every White nation, since the Second World War.

Of course, corrupting a nation’s soul may turn out to be a fairly large and complex undertaking, and lots of tricks may be required to get the job done. When it comes to tricks, however, the Jews are in their own element. The slickest and most effective trick the Jews have pulled since the war is their famous Holocaust trick. I’ve spoken with you before about the Holocaust. I’ve pointed out that the way to see through the trick is to examine it piece by piece, claim by claim, detail by detail. That’s the way to separate the lies from the half-truths that they have skillfully woven together. That’s why anyone who refuses to swallow the thing whole, anyone who refuses to bow and genuflect in the presence of the Holocaust, anyone who irreverently says, “Well, let’s examine this thing and see what it’s made of,” is denounced hysterically as a “Holocaust denier.”

Today we’ll look at what a Jew has to say about the Holocaust trick. The Jew is Norman Finkelstein. He is a professor at the City University of New York, and he’s a leftist. Like some other leftist Jews, he’s at odds with what he sees as a fascist government in Israel. More than that, I believe, is his concern that the greedier and more ambitious Jews will overreach themselves and bring disaster down on the heads of all the Jews. He’s especially concerned that the Holocaust myth will come unraveled and result in an enormous Gentile backlash against the Jews. He would like to defuse the thing before it blows up. And so Finkelstein has just had a book published for that purpose. It is titled The Holocaust Industry, and his fellow Jews are not happy about it. In fact, they are screaming for his blood. It is a dynamite book. It was published last month, and you can get a copy from my company, National Vanguard Books, or from Amazon.com, even though you probably won’t find it in your friendly neighborhood bookstore.

Finkelstein spends the first few pages of his book documenting the fact that the Holocaust is a Jewish myth constructed more than 20 years after the end of the Second World War. The term did not come into general use until after 1967. Everyone understood, of course, that Jews had died during the war. No one questioned the fact that there were concentration camps where many Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and other undesirables were segregated from German society. No one questioned the fact that toward the end of the war, when conditions in Poland and Germany became chaotic, conditions became even worse in the concentration camps, and many concentration camp prisoners, weakened by malnutrition, died from typhus and other diseases. No one questioned the fact that on the eastern front there were mass shootings of Jewish hostages or that Jewish political commissars were separated from Soviet POWs and shot. Many civilians on both the German side and the Jewish side died during the war.

But it wasn’t until more than 20 years after the war that Jewish leaders calculated that there was much to be gained by portraying Jews as the principal victims of the war, and so the Holocaust myth was constructed for this purpose. Mixing some facts — usually exaggerated or distorted facts — with lots of invention, the skilled mythmakers of Hollywood and New York brought forth the Holocaust, in which innocent Jews became the principal victims of the war, pushed into “gas ovens” by the millions by sadistic Nazis.

Finkelstein notes that the two defining dogmas of the Holocaust were, first, the claim that it was unique, the claim that no other persecution in all of history was even close to the Holocaust in magnitude or severity, the claim that the Holocaust gives to Jews the status of the premier victims of the world. Nobody else has suffered as much as the Jews have — and so nobody else is entitled to as much sympathy and compensation as the Jews. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to sacrilege.

The second defining dogma of the Holocaust was that it was a completely irrational act on the part of the Germans and was in no way based on anything the Jews themselves had done. The Jews, in other words were wholly blameless victims. To suggest that perhaps it was some behavior on the part of the Jews which provoked the Germans was to “blame the victim,” a very Politically Incorrect sin. It was a transgression against this second dogma — the dogma of irrationality — which caused one of Germany’s most distinguished historians, Ernst Nolte, to be cast into the outer darkness by the Jews and their Gentile allies. Nolte has pointed out in his writing that one of the reasons Hitler was determined to break the grip of the Jews on German society was their support for communism, and this also was one of a number of reasons the German people shared Hitler’s dislike of the Jews. The overwhelming role of the Jews in Soviet communism — and also in the communist movement in Germany before Hitler became chancellor in 1933 — was well known in Germany and elsewhere. And the atrocities committed by the Jews against the Gentile populations of those countries under communist rule — the artificial famine in Ukraine in which millions died and the mass shootings of Ukrainian peasants, for example — were well known also. So when Nolte received an award last month for his work as a historian, the Jews went into their Chicken Little act, a lot like the act they staged when Austrian Jörg Haider’s party entered the Austrian government a few months ago. Nolte was being rewarded for “blaming the victims” the Jews and their apologists screeched.

Finkelstein quotes some of the leading Holocaust propagandists in this regard. They see any form of anti-Semitism as a “Gentile mental pathology” with no rational basis. According to Holocaust high priest Elie Wiesel the anti-Semite is driven by:

. . .irrational arguments and simply resents the fact that the Jew exists.

Wiesel writes:

For two thousand years . . . we were always threatened. . . . For what? For no reason.

Daniel Goldhagen, the author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, one of the most outrageously self-serving Holocaust propaganda books, writes that anti-Semitism is:

The world wants to wipe out the Jews . . . the world has always wanted to wipe out the Jews.

Finkelstein’s book is especially valuable because it is so well documented. He cites dozens of other books and gives specific references to a number of especially revealing statements by other Jews. He also spares no scorn in talking about charlatans such as Wiesel and Goldhagen. He shows up Wiesel as a pious fraud whose standard speaker’s fee for lying about what happened during the Second World War is $25,000. Wiesel’s popularity is based on his ability to look solemn and spout utter nonsense without cracking a smile. He doesn’t talk about reality but about the sacred, ineffable mystery which is the Holocaust, a mystery beyond all understanding or explanation, which must never be examined or questioned. And his Gentile audiences just eat it up. I must admit that I thought a Jew couldn’t be embarrassed by this sort of fraud, but apparently Finkelstein really is embarrassed by Wiesel.

Finkelstein’s explanation as to why the Holocaust was invented is essentially the same as mine: the Holocaust gives the Jews immunity from criticism for whatever they do to non-Jews, no matter how atrocious, and it gives them a rationale for demanding a handout from the rest of the world. Finkelstein does a very creditable job of establishing this explanation by detailing the way in which the Jews have squeezed the Swiss and others for billions of dollars in Holocaust reparations. He writes:

In recent years the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket.

Certainly, Finkelstein’s book should be read by anyone interested in what the Jews are doing. It is filled with very valuable information. It does have one extremely serious shortcoming, however. It blames the Holocaust fraud on a few greedy and unscrupulous Jews. Finkelstein writes about the activities of some of these Jews: Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Israel Singer, the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and so on. And the greed and pushiness of these Jews is indeed breathtaking. Finkelstein reveals, for example, that Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi-hunter, rents out his name to the Simon Wiesenthat Center in Los Angeles for $90,000 a year. Actually, that’s a good deal for Rabbi Hier and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Hier rakes in millions of dollars every year from guilt-stricken Gentiles by reminding them that they didn’t save enough Jews from Hitler during the Second World War.

But the fact is that if there were only a few greedy conspirators involved, the Holocaust industry never would have made a profit. The average couch potato never would have heard of it. The average soccer mom wouldn’t feel a twinge of guilt whenever Elie Wiesel invokes the sacred Holocaust mystery. So-called “Holocaust studies” would not be a part of the curriculum for high school students in 17 states. Israel wouldn’t be able to build a huge arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without a peep of protest from anyone and then demand successfully that Iraq be bombed back into the Stone Age for trying to do the same thing.

The fact is that the Holocaust industry was built first and foremost by the mass media, and literally hundreds of thousands of Jews labor in that particular vineyard. A few ambitious Zionists and greedy Jewish hucksters may have come up with the original idea, but Steven Spielberg has done infinitely more to build the Holocaust myth than all of the greedy Zionist officials together. Furthermore, the Holocaust has been endorsed and supported by nearly the entire Jewish community. Nearly every Jew wants his share of Holocaust profits. Those like Finkelstein who have done anything at all to expose the fraud or even to disassociate themselves from it are a very tiny minority. Finkelstein certainly understands that, but he doesn’t admit in his book that he understands it. He doesn’t want to indict the Jewish community as a whole for the fraud, but in fact, it is the Jewish community as a whole that is guilty.

I said earlier that the Jews as a whole are destructive, and I used the example of the Holocaust to support this statement. The Holocaust is supported by and benefits Jews as a whole, not just a few of them, and the Holocaust is destructive to us, to our nation, in a thousand ways. The Holocaust shields Jewish organized crime in America, for example. Janet Reno’s Justice Department is afraid to tackle the big Jewish gangsters the way it tackled the Italian Mafia. The White sex-slave trade is able to flourish in Israel, and no politician in the United States will do anything to oppose it because it is a Jewish business. No politician in our government will threaten to cut off aid to Israel. Hillary Clinton can participate in an international conference on protecting women and deliberately and knowingly sabotage any measures that might put a crimp in the Jewish trade in sex slaves, and no one has the courage to criticize her for it. There’s really a lot more than crime and money and political corruption involved in this Holocaust racket. We let it control us, we let it rob us of our courage, and it destroys our souls.

Well, I’ve spoken in earlier broadcasts about many of the issues involved in the Holocaust racket. I’ll speak about other Holocaust issues in future broadcasts. It’s a big subject, with many facets. What you can do now is read Professor Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry. And then think about what you’ve read in the book while you watch the Bush campaign dance all around Al Gore’s vice-presidential choice Joseph Lieberman, afraid to lay a glove on him. You’ll understand why they’re afraid to say anything critical of Lieberman.

There has been a lot of commotion in the controlled media recently about Swiss bankers who supposedly are hiding the assets of various Jews who perished more than 50 years ago, during the Second World War, in the so-called “Holocaust.” The idea is that during the war Jews in Germany, France, and other European countries squirreled their money away in secret Swiss bank accounts so the Germans couldn’t get it. Then the Jews were hauled off to concentration camps or otherwise came to an end, and their money still remains in the secret Swiss accounts. The news stories have hinted that the Swiss bankers have been remiss in simply keeping the money in the accounts, rather than searching for heirs or turning it over to Jewish organizations. It has been suggested that billions of dollars of Jewish money is being kept from the Jews to whom it rightfully belongs. Jewish groups are demanding that the Swiss set up a fund immediately to reimburse “Holocaust” survivors.

The Swiss, who are proud of the integrity of their banking system, are naturally indignant about these Jewish allegations that they have behaved improperly. The outgoing president of Switzerland, Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, called the Jewish media campaign “extortion” and “blackmail.” The Jews and the media have responded by clamoring even more insistently that the Swiss should pay billions of dollars to the Jews. In fact they now have begun making demands against Sweden as well. The Jews claim that the Germans bought raw materials from Sweden during the war using gold that had been confiscated from Jews, and that now Sweden owes that gold to Jewish “Holocaust” survivors.

It’s really an amazing campaign. The Swiss bankers have said repeatedly that they have checked their inactive accounts in the past, and that they are holding at most a few million dollars which may belong to the relatives of Jews who died during the war, that it could not possibly amount to the billions of dollars the Jews are claiming, and that they have treated the accounts of their Jewish depositors just like they treat all of their accounts. Yet the media virtually ignore what the Swiss say and continue to raise a huge hullabaloo about the poor, persecuted Jews and how they are being done wrong by the Swiss and the Swedes. And, of course, the U.S. politicians are jumping into the act, demanding that the Swiss and the Swedes satisfy the Jews. It’s really amazing.

You know, I haven’t talked much in the past about the so-called “Holocaust,” because I’ve felt that really is a job for the historians, and I’m not a professional historian. Unfortunately, however, the “Holocaust” is one of those politically sensitive subjects which makes professional historians very nervous. Jews – and apologists for the Jews – have written literally thousands of “Holocaust” books during the past 50 years, and many of the claims made in these books are patently false. The professional historians know that, but they hesitate to say anything, lest they be branded as “Holocaust deniers” by the powerful Jewish organizations and by the controlled news media.

Because of this timidity on the part of the professionals, perhaps we amateurs really have an obligation to speak out more. This whole “Holocaust” business is a fascinating subject, and there’s much to be learned from looking into it, even if one isn’t a professional historian. Take, for example, the label of “Holocaust denier,” which is pasted on anyone who dares to ask questions about the “Holocaust.” If I comment publicly that the official figure for the number of Jews who died in the big concentration and labor camp at Auschwitz, in Poland, has been revised downward recently by the Polish government from an earlier figure of four million to about one million, and I suggest that perhaps that means that the famous figure of “six million” Jews killed by the Germans also needs to be revised downward – if I make such a suggestion, then I’m immediately denounced as a “Holocaust denier.” That’s the standard phrasing that’s been agreed on by all of the big Jewish outfits, the news media, the bought politicians, and so on: “Holocaust denier.” That’s what you’re called if you question anything about the official myth. It’s a crooked tactic. It deliberately makes it look like you’re denying that there ever was any such thing as a “Holocaust.” It’s a label that’s designed to make any questioner look like some sort of extremist who denies that anything at all happened to the Jews during the Second World War. That’s crooked, isn’t it?

I know that Jews were killed during the war. I’ve talked with German soldiers who shot Jews. In the war against the Soviet Union and Communism, the Germans found that virtually all of the Jews they encountered on the Eastern Front were Communist partisans, that Jews were heavily involved in Communist guerrilla activities, in sabotage, and in other hostile actions against the Germans. Often the only way to pacify an area was to round up all of the Jews and ship them off to a concentration camp or to shoot them. Most of the other folks on the Eastern Front – the Poles, the Ukrainians, often even the Russians – were happy enough to have the German Army get the Communists off their backs, but the Jews were fanatically pro-Communist. The Soviet Political Commissars who were attached to all Red Army units to spy on ordinary Russian soldiers and look for any signs of Political Incorrectness nearly always were Jews, and the German Army in many cases separated these Jewish Political Commissars from their Russian prisoners of war and shot the commissars.

I also know that Germans didn’t like Jews, and Hitler especially didn’t like them, and as a consequence the German government tried very hard to encourage Jews to leave Germany, even before the war. Laws were passed limiting Jewish participation in some professions – such as the law and publishing – where they were heavily overrepresented.

So I know that something did happen to the Jews in Europe both before and during the Second World War, and if they want to call that something a “Holocaust,” that’s all right with me. I don’t deny that something did happen. I don’t deny that there was a “Holocaust.” I’m just interested in checking the details, in checking the facts. But as soon as I or anyone else does that, we’re called “Holocaust deniers.”

That’s interesting, because the obvious intent of the people who use that label is to discourage us from asking questions. They don’t want the details checked. They don’t want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts they present to us. And after being called a “Holocaust denier” a hundred times or so, I’ve come to believe that the reason they don’t want their facts checked is that they know that in many cases their facts are false. That’s really crooked – but I believe that to be an accurate assessment of the situation.

I first became interested in the “Holocaust” enough to want to check it out when I encountered some especially fanciful accounts by so-called “survivors.” I read accounts by Jews who claimed that they saw German soldiers grabbing Jewish babies by their legs and swinging their heads against brick walls to smash out their brains. One Jewess told of witnessing German soldiers carrying Jewish children one at a time up the stairs to the top of a building, throwing them off, and laughing when they hit the pavement below and were killed. Other Jews made the claim that they saw German guards separate Jews out from prisoners arriving at concentration camps, pour gasoline on them, and set them afire, right on the train platform. And there were other stories about Jewish prisoners with colorful tattoos being selected from the camps and then skinned so that their tattooed skin could be made into lampshades. Now, these stories just didn’t jibe with what I knew about the German Army and the German government during that period. I knew that the Germans didn’t like Jews, but I also knew that the German Army was the best-disciplined army in the world. I knew that they had a better record of behavior in the countries they occupied than any other army in the Second World War – including the U.S. Army. I had until that point believed the stories that the Germans had methodically herded the Jews into gas chambers. But I really doubted that any disciplined army would tolerate its soldiers just killing prisoners for sport.

If you saw the anti-German propaganda film which came out a couple of years ago, Schindler’s List, you will remember that it portrayed the German commandant of a labor camp shooting Jewish inmates with a hunting rifle from his balcony. That was the sort of thing I had questioned when I first encountered these stories. And yet, very few other people were questioning these accounts. Newspapers and magazines and books were reporting them as if they were unquestionably true.

I began looking into the matter in detail, and I discovered many interesting things. I discovered that some Jews had been killed, and I discovered the circumstances under which they were killed. I discovered that many more Jews simply died under the conditions that existed toward the end of the war, when malnutrition and disease were rampant in the prison camps. I discovered that the total number of Jews who were killed and who died of disease was substantially less than the six million claimed by the Jewish propagandists. Most important, I discovered that a great many lies had been told about what had happened during the “Holocaust.” I discovered that most of the tales about gas chambers – that is, the ones that could be checked out – were not true. I discovered that not a single one of the stories about bashing out babies’ brains or throwing children off buildings or shooting prisoners with hunting rifles for sport, à la Schindler’s List, could be substantiated, and that they were all almost certainly false.

All of this is interesting in itself; at least, it is interesting to me. It is a part of our history. I could talk all day about the details, about the facts that I discovered when I began looking into the “Holocaust,” but I don’t want to bore you. If you really want to know the details, write to the Institute for Historical Review. They’re experts, and they’re honest. Their address is:

Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739
Newport Beach, CA 92659

To me what’s even more interesting about the “Holocaust” story than all of the holes in it is the motivation behind it, the way the story is being used today, and the response of various elements of our society to it. Let’s go back for a moment to that deliberately misleading label of “Holocaust denier” that I mentioned earlier. If you’ve spent any time exploring the Internet – especially some of the political discussion groups on the Internet – you’ll have heard that term “Holocaust denier” often enough. It’s not that the “Holocaust” is a hot topic of discussion on the Internet. It isn’t. But it is discussed occasionally, along with just about every other topic under the sun, and it’s discussed openly, without fear. The Internet is just about the only place left where one can discuss politically sensitive topics openly. And that just drives the big Jewish censorship organizations crazy. They don’t want any open discussion of the “Holocaust.” They’re terrified of it. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been especially loud in its complaints about the lack of censorship on the Internet. Without censorship, they complain, the “Holocaust deniers” can say anything they want. If we don’t censor the Internet, the “Holocaust deniers” can come right into your home and contaminate your child’s mind while he’s using his computer to do his homework.

They’ve tried to intimidate people into silence. They’ll have one of their own people claim to be a World War II veteran, and his standard line will be, “Hey, don’t try to tell me there wasn’t a Holocaust. I was there. I saw the bodies. So don’t try to tell me there wasn’t a Holocaust.”

Now, that sort of tactic may work on television, where they control the whole medium and no one can contradict them. But on the Internet people have been contradicting them. People have been saying, “Hey, we’re not trying to tell you there were no bodies. We just want to know how many bodies. We want to know how they died.” But they will not engage in a rational discussion with you. If one trick won’t silence you, they’ll try another. They’ll say, “What difference does it matter how many? If only one Jew were killed just for being a Jew, that’s a terrible crime. That’s a Holocaust.” That’s supposed to embarrass you into shutting up. But on the Internet you can come back and say, “Well, what about the Germans who were killed just because they were Germans. What about the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Hungarians who were killed by some Jewish Commissar just because they were anti-Communists? Don’t they count? Wasn’t that a crime for which someone should be held accountable?”

They don’t like to hear that. They really don’t. Try it sometime, if you have a thick skin and don’t mind having them shriek insults at you.

Their final line of defense is governmental force, governmental repression. If they can’t embarrass you into silence, they turn to the politicians and demand laws to make you shut up. That’s what they’ve already done in Europe and in Canada, where you can be jailed for being a “Holocaust denier” – which means, for questioning anything at all about what really happened. There are many people in German prisons now who made the mistake of saying, “Hey, I was a guard at such and such a prison camp during the war, and there was no gas chamber there.” In Britain, they already have laws against criticizing Jews, but they want the laws toughened, and so they’ve turned to the politicians. And, I’m sorry to say, the politicians in Britain are just about as crooked a lot as we have here. The chairman of the British Labor Party, Tony Blair, is a real piece of filth, of about the same quality as Bill Clinton. He hopes to be the new prime minister after the parliamentary elections coming up in May. He has announced, with a little prodding from the Labor Party’s Jewish backers, that when he is prime minister he will propose a new law making “Holocaust denial” a specific crime, so that anyone who questions whether or not there was a gas chamber in such and such a place can be locked up, just as in Germany.

And that’s what they want in America too. The Jewish lawyers and journalists and professors – and their Gentile collaborators – already are working hard to persuade people that the First Amendment to our Constitution needs to be scrapped, or at least rewritten. The Founding Fathers never intended to protect all types of speech, they say. They never intended to protect indecent or hurtful speech. And to deny the “Holocaust” is indecent and hurtful. They’re working hard on it. The trendier Gentiles already are falling into line. Believe me, they’ll be making a strong push to abolish free speech in America soon. They’ll tell us that it’s for our own good.

But it’s for their own good, not ours. That’s the most interesting insight I gained from checking out the “Holocaust.” I learned why they push it so hard, why they’ve made so many Hollywood propaganda films like Schindler’s List, why they’ve told so many whoppers about bashing out babies’ brains and making lampshades out of skinned Jews, why they talked the politicians into letting them have a Holocaust Museum in Washington, why they’ve gotten politicians at the state level to pass laws requiring that the public schools carry “Holocaust” indoctrination courses, and why they’re so desperate to stop people from asking questions.

It’s not just because they’re afraid of being exposed as liars if they stop defending their old lies with new lies. It’s not just because they hate the Germans and like to beat them over the head with the “Holocaust.” And it’s not just because they find the “Holocaust” a convenient excuse for the crimes they have committed and still are committing against the Palestinian people. There’s a much bigger reason than all of these things – and a much more dangerous reason for us, for our people. But you are an intelligent person with at least a little bit of open-mindedness, a little bit of mental independence, or you wouldn’t be reading this magazine. Why don’t you discover for yourselves why the Jews are so defensive about the “Holocaust,” why they are so afraid for anyone to ask questions about it? It’s an easy thing to do, and I believe it’ll be much more convincing if you find out for yourselves, instead of having me tell you. There are thousands of books out there that they’ve written. Go into any large bookstore or library and you’ll find books about the “Holocaust” by the top “Holocaust” promoters, Jews like Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal. Read these books with an open mind, with a questioning mind. Think about the claims they make. Then get a copy of our book catalog and read a couple of the books we sell – or read some books from the Institute for Historical Review – and think about what you read in these books too. Make up your own mind. I believe you’ll find it an illuminating and rewarding experience.

Why does the American professorial class insist that students “believe” what they are told – and told and told — about Germans and Jews during World War 11? Why does the American academic refuse to encourage students to create a free exchange of ideas about what really happened during that fracas? Why? One word reveals the story. That word is “shame.”

Sometimes the most important things occur virtually unnoticed, while people’s attention is focused on things of no consequence. Last week, while everyone was glued to his television screen, oohing and ahing over Hurricane Floyd and watching the huge traffic jams of lemmings fleeing the southeastern coastal areas lest they be obliged to do a little wading, much more dangerous and sinister doings than wind, rain, and high tides were afoot, but hardly anyone noticed. The Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington was holding a public hearing and listening to suggestions from various pressure groups on ways to eliminate free speech on the Internet.

That’s not what they called it, of course; they said they were trying to devise ways of keeping „hate“ off the Internet. They want to protect children from being exposed to „hate,“ they say. They want to reduce the amount of violence in the country, they say; many people learn from the Internet to hate, and then having learned to hate, they run out and commit acts of violence. Keep „hate“ off the Internet, and then there will be less violence. That’s what they claim to believe.

Well, whether their theory about the Internet provoking people to violence is correct or not, it sounds as if the Senate Judiciary Committee really means well, doesn’t it? I mean, who could be against reducing the amount of „hate“ in America? That’s really a Mom and apple pie issue, isn’t it?

Of course, if you’re a skeptical sort of person, as I am, you might want to know exactly what this „hate“ consists of that the senators and the witnesses testifying for them are so eager to keep off the Internet. „Hate,“ it seems to me, could be a tricky thing to define. Would you call any expression of dislike or contempt „hate“? Maybe only a strong expression of dislike? How strong? Maybe whether an expression of dislike or contempt is „hate“ depends on who is making the expression and who is the target of the dislike. I mean, really, how do you decide what is „hate“ and what isn’t?

Well, listen, you will be pleased and relieved to learn that we don’t have to bother our little heads about that at all. We don’t have to decide what is „hate“ and what isn’t. We have some very public-spirited people who have volunteered to do that for us. Lucky us! These are the very same public-spirited people who persuaded the senators to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the first place and then appeared as witnesses before the committee. They are Howard

Berkowitz, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; and several other like-minded citizens of the Jewish persuasion. Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center sent a witness to testify, for example.

These public-spirited citizens are referred to uniformly by the controlled media as „civil rights experts“ or „human rights advocates.“ Isn’t that reassuring to know that these people who want to protect us from „hate“ on the Internet also are concerned about our civil rights?

Reading the testimony of these Jewish witnesses and the comments of the eager-to-please politicians on the committee is a surreal experience. Their language is Orwellian. Nothing really

means what it sounds like it means. Rabbi Abraham Cooper referred to the Internet as a „terrorism tutor“ and implied that a substantial part of the violence in American life is the consequence of permitting „hate“ on the Internet. The truth, of course, is that most of the violent criminals in America never have had their hands on a computer keyboard. There is no evidence that even one act of real terrorism in the United States had anything at all to do with the Internet.

If, in fact, terrorists learn their trade from the media or are provoked to commit violent acts by the media, I would suspect Hollywood long before I would suspect the Internet. But I guess that Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and Mr. Dees would want to change the subject in a hurry if you began talking to them about violence inspired by television or by Hollywood films, however. After all, it’s their tribe which is in control of the television and film business.

The witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spoke of Internet sites where one can learn to make a bomb. Perhaps there are such sites, although I’ve never seen one. But I cannot think of a single terrorist bombing in the United States in which the bomber could have learned from the Internet how to build his bomb. Neither Timothy McVeigh nor the people accused of bombing the World Trade Center in New York were ever on the Internet, so far as I am aware. Certainly, no evidence was presented by the government at their trials to indicate they were.

Really, the whole notion that people commit violent crimes or terrorist acts as a consequence of „hate“ on the Internet is simply ridiculous. Do you know what these anti-hate crusaders presented as evidence of terrorism inspired or facilitated by the Internet? I’ll quote directly from the transcript of the hearing. The committee chairman, Utah’s Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, said that he was pleased to have as a witness the assistant U.S. attorney from Los Angeles, Michael Gennaco, who had gained „the first conviction against a hate-crime assailant for acts taken on the Internet.“ Assistant U.S. Attorney Gennaco then related his achievement to the committee:

„On the morning of March 5, 1998, 42 Latino faculty members turned on their computers at Cal State Los Angeles to read their e-mails. They read a mean-spirited derogatory statement against Latinos. Using the most demeaning racial slurs, the sender told the faculty members that he hated their race, that he wanted them to die, that the only reason the professors were hired was because of Affirmative Action, that their race was stupid, greedy, and ugly, and that the sender was going to personally come down and kill each of them.“

The student who sent this message to the Latino faculty members was tracked down, arrested, tried, and convicted. Of course, the name of the offending student wasn’t mentioned in the hearing – just for your information, his name is Kwon – and it also wasn’t mentioned in the hearing that Kwon is Chinese, because that inconvenient fact doesn’t fit the general theme the committee wanted to develop. Before we get into that theme, however, let us remember that what this Chinese student did – essentially sending a death threat by wire – certainly was nothing new, and it required no new laws for its prosecution.

The fact that this was the best example the committee could come up with of a genuine Internet- related „hate crime“ ought to tell us that this whole pretense of being concerned about the connection between „hate“ on the Internet and violence is phony. These Jewish „human rights

advocates“ like Berkowitz and Cooper understand that there simply are no convincing cases of violence or terrorism stemming from the Internet, so after giving us the pitiful example of Kwon and his derogatory e-mail to the Mexican faculty members – and giving it to us in such a way that many of us would assume that Kwon was a heterosexual White male, their stereotypical „hater“ – after this they try to bolster their case with all sorts of innuendo and misdirection.

For example, much was made in the hearing of the facts that Benjamin Smith, the University of Indiana student who shot a Korean and a Black this summer, belonged to the World Church of the Creator, and the World Church of the Creator has an Internet web site. The not so subtle implication was that if the World Church of the Creator had been kept off the Internet in some way, then the Black and the Korean shot by Benjamin Smith still would be alive. But that’s really a false implication. Benjamin Smith wasn’t incited by the Internet to shoot anyone. He knew personally the man who heads the World Church of the Creator; he was his close associate and helper. That man is an attorney; he has a law degree and wants to practice law in Illinois. And when that man was denied a law license by the Politically Correct Illinois bar committee because they didn’t like his religious beliefs, Smith went on a rampage. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Internet had anything to do with it.

And there was a lot of other deliberate misdirection too by the politicians and the Jewish witnesses. The shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado were invoked by several witnesses. Rabbi Cooper claimed „In 1999 the Internet can serve as a terrorism tutor; it did for Eric Harris at Columbine.“ Rabbi Cooper seems to have forgotten that Eric Harris had a Jewish accomplice, Dylan Klebold.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Joseph Roy, who was also a witness, testified:

„In Littleton, Colorado, the two youths who opened fire on their classmates at Columbine High School may well have been inspired, in some part, by neo-Nazi propaganda they encountered on the Net. It seems clear that they found plans for building pipe bombs and other weapons there.“

Now, that is really deceptive, and I’m sure that Mr. Roy intended it to be. He knows that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not „neo-Nazis“; he knows that one was a Jew and that both were anti-racist. He knows that Eric Harris had an Internet web site in which he said that he wanted to torture and kill White racists. If Harris and Klebold were inspired by anything they encountered on the Net, it certainly wasn’t „neo-Nazi propaganda“; on the contrary, the evidence suggests that they were inspired by the sort of multicultural „love“ and diversity-mongering with which the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith poison the Net. As to whether or not Harris and Klebold found plans on the Net for making pipe bombs, that’s really beside the point, since they did all of their killing and wounding with shotguns and pistols. They neither killed nor injured anyone with a pipe bomb.

So without the least bit of evidence that Politically Incorrect web sites on the Internet have any connection to terrorism, why did the Jews and the politicians bother to have this hearing? Why try to persuade anyone that the Internet is a „terrorism tutor“ when it plainly isn’t? What’s the point?

The point is that the Jews aren’t concerned about the Internet as a so-called „terrorism tutor“; that is just a smoke-screen. What they are concerned about is keeping inconvenient facts and ideas off the Internet. They don’t want to stop terrorism; they want to stop the spread of truth. Until the Internet came along the Jews had a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the general public. If they wanted to persuade the public that in most interracial crime White males are the aggressors, there was no one to contradict them with the facts. They could report – over and over and over again, with non-stop coverage – any interracial crime in which Whites actually were the aggressors and ignore all Black-on-White crimes, which is essentially what they’re still doing – but with the Internet people like me are embarrassing them with the facts.

Five or six years ago they could talk about „Russian“ organized crime on television or in the New York Times, and there was no one to tell the public that it wasn’t „Russian“ organized crime at all: that it was 100 per cent Jewish organized crime. They could whine about how they were „persecuted“ by the Swiss and the Germans and the Swedes and the Poles and the Ukrainians and the Russians and the Lithuanians and the Latvians and everyone else during the Second World War, and how everyone owed them hundreds of billions of dollars in „reparations“ now, and there was no one to tell the world about the persecution of other peoples and nations by the Jews. There was no one to point out to the world that for every dollar taken from the Jews during the war, the Jews stole 100 dollars from those countries which fell victim to their communist racket. They could moan to the world about how the cold and cruel Gentiles just stood by and let six million Jews be led into the gas chambers, and so now the very least the world could do for the Jews was to give them a free ride. Anyone who questioned their story was immediately shrieked down as a „Holocaust denier,“ and the questioner had no way of presenting the historical facts to the public. People like me could print a few pamphlets and distribute them on street corners, but for all practical purposes we had no effective way of exposing the lies of the Jews.

The Jews liked it that way. They liked having a monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the public. The Internet robs them of that monopoly, and they don’t like that a bit. They don’t like having me and others exposing their lies and telling the public things they prefer to keep quiet.

Of course, even with the Internet available to us, we can’t challenge the hold the Jews have on America’s political system – at least, not yet. The great mass of the voters, the couch potatoes, the ball game fans, don’t use the Internet and never will – except perhaps to access porno sites and check their horoscopes. But the perceptive and intelligent minority of White men and women capable of independent thought now have a new information medium, a new medium for the exchange of ideas, and the Jews aren’t able to control it. That’s what they don’t like. That’s what they’re afraid of, certainly not terrorism.

They’re afraid of the fact that as the sickness of American society becomes more and more evident to the perceptive few, that as the craziness and destructiveness going on in Washington and Hollywood take a greater and greater toll, more and more of the people who really count, the intelligent and productive White men and women in the universities and in the professions and in industry who somehow keep this civilization staggering along under its growing burden – these people are looking for answers, and Rabbi Cooper and his fellow tribesmen are afraid they may

find the answers. They are desperately afraid of that. And that’s why they told the politicians to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. They are desperate to control the Internet the same way they control television and the New York Times; they are desperate to censor the Internet, to choke off the free flow of information. But of course, they won’t tell us that. What they tell us is that they want to protect us from violence and terrorism caused by „hate“ on the Internet.

So what do you think? Are the American people too smart to fall for that sort of deception? Are we so fond of our freedom that we won’t give it up just because the Jews have cleverly labeled it as „hate“? Can we relax because Senator Hatch and the other senators on the committee all swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and therefore won’t let these Jews get away with their scheme?

Listen, you know as well as I do that Senator Hatch and every other politician in the Congress would fall all over themselves to abolish the whole Bill of Rights in order to please Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and the rest – if they thought the American people would let them get away with it. They know that the couch potatoes won’t object, but they’re still concerned about that minority of perceptive and responsible White Americans who aren’t quite ready yet to give up their freedom without a fight.

So the hearing last week was well larded with assurances that new laws can be devised to keep „hate“ off the Internet without infringing on anyone’s freedom of speech. If that leaves you a little uncertain as to exactly what these Jews have in mind, let me tell you about something which happened this month in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, suburb of Oakland Park. Lloyd Shank is a 73-year-old retired carpenter who lives in Oakland Park, which is in Broward County. Mr. Shank doesn’t much like the Clinton government, and he also doesn’t like Jews. On August 23 he hand-delivered copies of a one-page letter he had written to members of the Broward County Commission. All but one of the members of the county commission are Jews, and the one who is not is a woman married to a Jew. After the Second World War New York Jews migrated in large numbers to Florida and virtually took over the southeastern part of the state.

In his letter Mr. Shank said some unkind things about the Clinton government, including the charge that the government is responsible for the deaths of more than 80 members of a church in Waco, Texas, that the FBI and other secret police agencies laid siege to and then burned to the ground on April 19, 1993, with most of the church members, including women and children, inside. Mr. Shank also said some unkind things about Jews in his letter, calling them „perverts“ and accusing them of liking to be hated. He wound up his letter with the statement:

„When your holocaust reprisals come, hide in the New York subways for security from nuclear bombs. Don’t forget your money.“

No threats, just an expression of dislike.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t see the point in sending letters to Jews telling them that they’re bad people and that you don’t like them. To me that seems like foolishness and a waste of time. But we have a right to be foolish and waste our time if we want to. We have a right to send

letters to people and call them perverts and tell them that we don’t like them, whether they are Jews or not. The Jews should not be exempted from criticism, and no one should be punished for criticizing them. We do still have a Constitution and freedom of speech – except in Broward County, Florida, apparently.

The Jews ran immediately to the police with Shank’s letter and demanded that he be arrested. Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne jumped to obey. With an eagerness to please that put Senator Orrin Hatch in the shade, Jenne arrested Shank and began making statements to the press: „We will not allow extremists to terrorize any member of our community.“ That sounds suspiciously like the sheriff of Broward County and his Jewish constituents believe that extremists – which is to say, people who criticize Jews – should have fewer rights than the rest of the citizenry.

A news story in the September 10 issue of the Miami Herald about Mr. Shank’s arrest stated:

„In the wake of a shooting spree at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles last month, authorities are taking anti-Semitic rhetoric like Shank’s seriously.“

Yes, but apparently they no longer take the Constitution of the United States seriously in Broward County. And believe me, that’s exactly what Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Mr. Howard Berkowitz and Mr. Morris Dees and their pals have in mind for the rest of the country, despite all of their deceptive claims that they’re not out to abolish the First Amendment.

What Factors Control Whether People Are Loyal to Their Country?

I have been reading about Aldrich Ames, an employee in our Central Intelligence Agency who was caught spying against the United States. There have been several other Americans caught recently who were spying for foreign governments, including one who was an FBI agent, but Ames was the most important, in terms of the amount of damage he did. A book about Ames, who was arrested three years ago, has been published recently. Its author is Pete Earley, and it’s titled Confessions of a Spy. The most interesting thing to me in the book was Ames’s explanation of why he decided to sell American secrets to the KGB. He never really thought of himself as a traitor. He needed money, and he didn’t think the CIA was paying him enough; he was essentially an alienated person who felt no sense of loyalty to anything.

There are a great many other people in this country who are just as alienated, just as self-oriented and rootless as Aldrich Ames. Most of them, of course, aren’t in a position like Ames was where they can do a great deal of damage. They don’t have the opportunity he had. And even among those who do have the opportunity, most aren’t enterprising enough or bold enough to take the risks involved. And that is the main reason there aren’t more spies being caught: there is a certain element of risk involved.

It used to be, 50 or 60 years ago, that people didn’t spy against their country because of a sense of loyalty. They felt themselves a part of the United States, and they would no more betray their country than they would betray a family member. During and shortly after the Second World War, for example, most of the American citizens caught spying against this country were Jews who were selling information to the Soviet Union. Part of the reason was because there was much more sympathy for Communism among Jews than among non-Jews, but part of the reason also was that Jews, as a group apart, felt no sense of loyalty to America. Their loyalty was to other Jews and to Jewish interests, but not to the country in which they happened to be living at the moment. Nowadays, Gentile Americans are nearly as lacking in loyalty to America, nearly as lacking in patriotism, as Jews are. People still feel a sense of loyalty to their friends and their families, but not much else.

Why is this? What has changed in America during the past 50 years to erode the sense of patriotism so much?

If you think about it for a minute you’ll know the answer. The average White person can no longer look on America as his family. He no longer feels a part of it. It’s just the place where he happened to have been born and happens to be living. He no longer feels a sense of kinship with all other Americans. The reason he doesn’t is primarily the result of the enormous increase in what liberals and the media fondly call „diversity“: that is, the great increase in the number of people with whom we feel nothing in common – people with different roots, people who look different, think differently, behave differently, and have different values – people whom we cannot even imagine being part of our family. When we look at America and see a great many people like that, when we see all of this „diversity,“ then we no longer feel ourselves a part of

America. We no longer feel a sense of loyalty to America. We no longer feel like traitors if we do something to hurt America.

To be sure, not everyone is as alienated yet as Aldrich Ames – but we’re getting there. And „diversity“ isn’t the only thing which is eroding our sense of patriotism. The liberals and the media are working hard at it. The Vietnam war took us a giant step away from patriotism. Some of you may not remember, but 25 years ago there were giant demonstrations in Washington on behalf of the Viet Cong and the Communists, who were killing American soldiers at the rate of 100 a day. Left-wing groups with Jewish leaders organized these demonstrations, and they bused in college students from all over the country, hundreds of thousands of them, for these demonstrations. Most of the kids weren’t Communists or even Communist sympathizers: they were just following the people on their campuses who were the loudest and pushiest and going along for the excitement and because it was the trendy thing to do. Some Jew would hand one of them a Viet Cong flag, and he would carry it, because everyone else was. It was very trendy, very fashionable to be anti-American.

And the worst thing about all this uproar during the Vietnam war is that the government did nothing to stop it. The government was sending young men over to Vietnam to be killed by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese and at the same time was permitting Viet Cong sympathizers to organize huge demonstrations in Washington and even providing police protection for them. The politicians were afraid to do anything, because the Jew-controlled media all sympathized with the demonstrators, and the politicians were afraid of the Jews. The net effect of this was a huge loss of respect for the government on the part of nearly everyone. The kids found that they could burn their draft cards and thumb their noses at the government and get away with it, and so they lost their respect for the government. The Vietnam vets came home and were treated like pariahs and felt unappreciated even by the government which had sent them to Vietnam, and so they lost their respect for the government. And I and many other patriots watched all of this in disgust, and we lost our respect for the government.

Back during the war I used to organize anti-Communist demonstrations to counter the big pro- Viet Cong demonstrations the Jews were organizing, and I used to give speeches against the politicians who were collaborating most openly with the Jews. I said in my speeches that these politicians were guilty of treason and ought to be dealt with summarily: they ought to be shot. And because of this the government sicced the FBI on me: not on them, but on me. I, and many others, developed a very negative feeling for the government during that time. That was 25 years ago, but everyone who went through that experience was changed by it. Much of the contempt for the government remains with them. And the kids who learned that it was fashionable to be anti-American kept some of that attitude even after they graduated from their colleges.

Of course, loss of respect for the government and loss of patriotism are two different things, but they both have been happening at the same time. It is interesting that today the media are trying to coax people into respecting the government again, while their assault on patriotism continues unabated. We have so many new laws and new governmental programs that are to the liking of the Jews in the media, and the politicians are so much more corrupt than they were 25 years ago, that the media now view the government more as an ally than as a rival. But the Jews in the media still hate and fear patriotism as much as ever. They have tried to make patriotism a dirty word. And they have succeeded pretty well among the trendy yuppies and the urban rabble over whom they have the strongest influence. They hold up the militias as the epitome of patriotism, and they try to frighten the lemmings with the specter of the angry, rural, White male with a gun and an American flag who is threatening the government which provides their welfare checks.

It may be that the people in the militias are not very sophisticated and don’t have very good public relations programs, but most of them still do have a little sense of patriotism: more patriotism, at least, than the folks who take their cue from the controlled media. The reason the media and the big Jewish pressure groups like Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center and the B’nai B’rith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center hate the militias and their old-fashioned patriotism so much is that they stand in the way of the New World Order. The Jews and their fellow travelers want the American people to transfer their loyalty from America as it used to be – that is, from the White America built by our ancestors when they came here from Europe, the America we could think of as our extended family – and give that loyalty instead to their New World Order.

Of course, they understand the idea of loyalty based on blood, on kinship, on common roots. That’s the kind of loyalty they have to each other and to Israel, but they don’t want us to have that. They know how powerful it is. They hate the idea of us being united by such a sense of patriotism. They hate it and fear it. And that’s why they’ve been working so hard to undermine old-fashioned American patriotism and replace it by allegiance to a faceless, raceless, rootless, cosmopolitan New World Order – under their control, of course.

And they’re succeeding at least half way. They are destroying patriotism in a substantial portion of the American public – which is why we’re seeing more people like Aldrich Ames in the news these days. They are not really succeeding, however, in building much allegiance to the New World Order. Of course, they’ve made it a fashionable idea among the liberals and the mindless trendies, and all of the politicians are giving lip service to it. But ultimately they cannot succeed in establishing loyalty to the New World Order in the place of old-fashioned, race-based patriotism, because, no matter how fashionable they make their idea of a New World Order among the liberals and the politicians, it is an unnatural idea. Liberals may gush about equality and the „brotherhood of man“ and the human race being the only race to which they feel loyalty, but that is empty sophistry. Fools may let themselves be convinced that they have become raceless, cosmopolitan patriots – patriots of the New World Order – but one will find very few of them who are willing to die or even make any major sacrifice for this new pseudo-patriotism.

Real patriotism is not some artificial idea dreamed up by Jews: It is something based in our genes, an instinct, an extension of the instinct for self-preservation to include our kin, our nation. One can undermine that patriotism by muddying and confusing the concept of nation, the image of nation, as has been done during the past half-century by promoting „diversity.“ When the enemies of our people, with the collaboration of the treasonous politicians in Washington – politicians of the sort I publicly urged should be shot during the Vietnam war – when these enemies infiltrate tens of millions of non-White immigrants into our country and stifle any effort to halt the flood, when they subsidize the breeding of a non-White underclass in our cities with our own tax money, when they force us to accept these growing non-White masses into our schools and neighborhoods and workplaces, when they saturate all of the news and entertainment media with the alien faces, alien tones, and alien antics of these non-Whites and gloatingly tell us that we’d better get used to the idea of becoming a minority in our own land within the next 50 years, then, of course, the patriotism which came naturally to our people in the past becomes meaningless – and we hear people like Aldrich Ames telling us that he sold national security information to the KGB because he needed money and he didn’t think he was doing anything worse than the politicians in Washington do every day. And I guess it’s hard to argue with him about that.

The process of social atomization, of deracination, of separating people from their roots and cutting the bonds to their natural communities so that they can become interchangeable units – human atoms – for building the New World Order is being promoted ruthlessly by the Jews and their collaborators, and the rising incidence of treason is only one of the smaller and less important consequences of this genocidal process.

I say that this process is genocidal, because it will certainly destroy us as a people, as a race, as well as destroying us as a nation. People with no sense of patriotism are people unable to defend themselves collectively. They are people who will be victimized by any group which still has a group feeling.

One of the factors which has made it possible for the Jews and their collaborators to undermine our patriotism is that we took it too much for granted in the past. Most of our people didn’t really think about it, analyze it, and understand its true basis. We let our idea of patriotism gradually drift from a racial idea to a geographical idea, a political idea. When our ancestors in Europe were defending their people against Huns or Moors or Mongols or Turks, they understood patriotism. Even after the rise of all of Europe’s national states, when patriotism began expressing itself as nationalism, it still had a racial – or at least an ethnic – basis. The words themselves tell us what their original meanings were. Patriotism, of course, comes from the Roman word for „father.“ Patriotism is love of the fatherland, love of the land inhabited by all of the people descended from a common father. Nationalism also comes to us from the Romans, from the Latin word for „birth.“ A nation is a group of people related by birth, by blood, and nationalism is love for that people, loyalty to that people. These feelings of patriotism or nationalism are very powerful feelings, because they are natural feelings. They contributed to our survival over a very long period of evolution.

But when we forget the racial meaning of patriotism and think of it only in geographical or political terms, as loyalty to every person, of whatever race, color, or creed, who happens to be living within a specified geographical area at the moment, then patriotism is no longer a natural feeling, but instead becomes artificial, and consequently much easier to subvert. And that is what has happened to people like Aldrich Ames – and is happening to more and more White Americans all the time, as the growth of „diversity“ proceeds.

The cure for this disease, for this erosion of patriotism, is not difficult to find. It is obvious. It is simply to understand and assimilate our patriotism as it originally was. The cure for what is happening to America begins by returning to the natural, race-based patriotism that our ancestors had when they halted the invading Moors at the Pyrenees nearly 1300 years ago and when, a thousand years later, they defended their settlements in North America against marauding Indians.

The enemies of our people have anticipated this possibility, of course. Just as Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center rail against the patriotism of the militias today, so have the Jews of the media and their collaborators been stigmatizing natural patriotism for the last 50 years. They call it „racism,“ and they have intimidated most of our people into running for cover whenever they begin throwing out their accusations of „racism.“

So while the cure for what has made White America sick is not difficult to find, it is a little harder to apply. It requires a little courage. It requires a little open-mindedness. It requires a little mental independence. It requires a little moral strength. It requires enough of us with these qualities to make patriotism a vital force in the life of our country again.

I believe that we can find enough such people to do the job. It will not be easy, of course. The media bosses and all of the other people who hate the real America will fight us all the way. The politicians will collaborate with them. Bill Clinton and everyone else who was demonstrating for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war will try to stop us.

But I believe that ultimately we will prevail. I believe that natural patriotism will prevail over the phony loyalty to the New World Order that the Jews and the trendies are promoting. The only uncertainty I have is how long it will take us and how many must die in overcoming America’s disease. Your help will make the victory come sooner and will make our casualties fewer.

Hollywood: the modern-day Babylon. The Hollywood motion picture industry is the most important vehicle of propaganda in the English-speaking world today. In the long run Hollywood exerts a greater influence over the English-speaking peoples than all other propaganda mediums combined. It has therefore become a prime target for communist infiltration. And since the film industry is overwhelmingly Jewish, it was a minimum of difficulty in setting up shop.